Presbytery of the Siouxlands erred because its Judicial Commission made serious procedural errors that undermined the legitimacy of the Judgments proposed. The disposition to be made of this Complaint is that the Presbytery of Siouxlands is instructed to undertake a new trial of TE Lawrence according to the instructions that follow.

The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) on June 17, 2014 sustained the complaint in Judicial Case 2012-08 (TE Art Sartorius, et. al., vs. the Presbytery of the Siouxlands). The complaint was considered by the SJC after the Presbytery of the Siouxlands denied the original complaint that alleged that the Presbytery erred when it found TE Gregory Lawrence not guilty after a trial.

The complaint asserted that the Presbytery erred in finding TE Lawrence “not guilty” of the five charges in the indictment. It alleged (1) that the Presbytery erred in failing to condemn erroneous views of TE Lawrence that are contrary to the Standards, and (2) that the Presbytery erred in the process taken by the Judicial Commission to reach its verdict.

The issue before the SJC was, “Did the Presbytery of Siouxlands err on September 22, 2011 in approving their Judicial Commission’s recommended judgments?” The SJC ruled the following on this issue:

Yes. Presbytery of the Siouxlands erred because its Judicial Commission made serious procedural errors that undermined the legitimacy of the Judgments proposed. The disposition to be made of this Complaint is that PS is instructed to undertake a new trial of TE Lawrence according to the instructions that follow (BCO 43-9, -10).

In its Reasoning and Opinion, the SJC stated the following:

Upon review of the Record of the Case (ROC), it is clear that the JC erred by receiving what was essentially testimony from the defendant while at the same time allowing the defendant to decline to testify. In so doing the JC admitted testimony contrary to BCO 35-5:

Witnesses shall be examined first by the party introducing them; then cross-examined by the opposite party; after which any member of the court, or either party, may put additional interrogatories.

The Rules of Discipline do provide that “The accused party may be allowed, but shall not be compelled, to testify;…” (BCO 35-1). TE Lawrence chose to exercise this right. The Rules further provide that, “At the second meeting of the court, the charges shall be read to the accused, if present, and he shall be called upon to say whether he be guilty or not.” (BCO 32-2).

However, TE Lawrence did not simply say “guilty or not,” but submitted the four page “Defendant’s Plea” pleading not guilty to the charges and providing written testimony with respect to each charge as to why he was not guilty. Further, Defense Exhibit 1, Part 1 was created and submitted post indictment, as well as Defense Exhibit 1, Part 2, Item 11. The JC admitted these items over objection. The JC treated these statements as testimony, quoting from them in articulating the reasons for its decision. The court should not have admitted such exculpatory material from the defendant, written after Presbytery voted to indict, unless he was waiving his right to decline to testify. This serious procedural error cast a shadow over the entire proceeding thereafter, sustaining an appearance of injustice in the adjudication of the trial, and casting doubt upon the ability of the JC to assess properly evidence as to the character of TE Lawrence’s views by cross examination. Cross examination is an essential tool in the pursuit of justice and arrival at the truth.1 This is especially true where a party or witness has made what appear to be42 conflicting statements. The JC clearly erred in receiving the post-indictment exculpatory statements offered by TE Lawrence without also requiring that TE Lawrence to be subject to cross examination with respect to those statements.2

In the disposition of a Complaint the SJC is governed by BCO 43-10:

The higher court has power, in its discretion, to annul the whole or any 6 part of the action of a lower court against which complaint has been made, or to send the matter back to the lower court with instructions for a new hearing.

F. P. Ramsey, when explaining the boundaries set forth in the provision, argues:

The superior court [may not] . . . . reverse the decision (in the sense in which reverse means more than annul). For instance, if the decision has been a decision finding guilty in a judicial case, on appeal the superior court may find the party not guilty; but on a complaint the superior court can only annul the finding of guilty, leaving the Church simply silent on the issue. Or if the complaint is against a decision of not guilty in a judicial case, the superior court could not reverse the decision on complaint; it could only annul the finding, leaving the Church silent on the issue. . . . But if the decision complained of was in a judicial case, whether the decision was guilty or not guilty, the superior court may order a new trial. . . .3

Consistent with Ramsey’s sound analysis, we order a new trial with the following instructions:

1. Presbytery shall conduct a new trial of TE Lawrence on the same Indictment that was filed on February 20, 2011. Presbytery may conduct this trial as a whole, or appoint a new Judicial Commission (which may include members of the original Commission), or, with the understanding that the SJC is not required to accede to that request (BCO 41-5), may refer the judicial case to the SJC for its trial and decision (BCO 15-3; 41-2, -3, -6).

2. Any part of the transcript of the testimony and examination of witnesses from the first trial and documents referred to with respect to those witnesses may be entered as evidence at the request of either party. Any other documentary evidence must be submitted to the trial court for its judgment de novo. The trial court shall take great care not to allow material to be included at any point in the proceedings that is inadmissible according to the rules of BCO 35. The defendant shall again have the right to testify or not as he so desires. However, no exculpatory written expression of the defendant’s views, prepared after February 20, 2011, shall be admissible unless the defendant testifies at trial. In addition, the trial court shall pay special attention to documenting and addressing fully each charge in the indictment so that the court and any higher court subsequently reviewing the trial record will have a clear understanding of TE Lawrence’s views with respect to the allegations of the indictment.

3. If the judicial case is not referred to the SJC (#1 above), the trial court shall proceed to trial with all due consideration and alacrity.

4. If a judicial commission is employed, its report shall be considered by Presbytery as soon as possible and shall be distributed to all TEs and Session Clerks at least 14 days before the Presbytery meeting at which it is to be considered under the rules of BCO 15-3. 5. Should the trial court finally render guilty judgments on the charges, TE  Lawrence would have the right to file an Appeal with the SJC following the procedures of BCO 42.

6. Should the trial court finally render not guilty judgments on the charges, the Complainants in this case (or anyone else with standing) shall have the right to file a Complaint following procedures of BCO 43. In the event such a Complaint is filed to, and denied by, the Presbytery, the Complainants shall have the right to file with the SJC.

7. Any Complaint should include the following:

Regarding BCO 39-3.2. On what factual matters, if any, is there a dispute between the Complainants and the trial court?

Regarding BCO 39-3.3. On what matters of judgment or discretion, if any, is there a dispute between the Complainants and the trial court?

Regarding BCO 39-3.4. On what specific section of the Constitution, if any, are there disputes with respect to the interpretation of the Constitution, between the Complainants and the trial court?

8. Should the Presbytery deny the Complaint, Presbytery’s report should include the following:

An answer to the Complaint’s assertions concerning disputed evidence, if any, setting forth from the ROC TE Lawrence’s views contrary to those assertions (determinations under BCO 39-3.2).

An answer to the Complaint’s assertions concerning disputed matters of judgment, if any, i.e., judgments as to why one set of defendant statements should be given more credence than another (e.g., because of recantation, revision or clarification) (determinations under BCO 39-3.3).

An answer to the Complaint’s assertions concerning differing interpretations of specific Constitutional provisions, if any, and why those interpretations are to be preferred over any claims of the complainant (determinations under BCO 39-3.4).

In conclusion, we note this case provides an appropriate occasion to think again about the rules of evidence that govern judicial proceedings in the PCA with respect to the theological views of an officer of the church. We raise no question about the longstanding principle of justice that insists that a governing authority has the burden of proof with respect to alleged wrongdoing, or an accused’s right against self-incrimination. However we note that with respect to the doctrinal views of officers of the church:

• they are required to explain and defend their opinions in order to be ordained to office (e.g., BCO 21-4.c.);
• they are required to explain and defend their opinions when seeking admission to another court (e.g., BCO 13-6.);
• they are required by their second ordination vow to notify the court of original jurisdiction if they find themselves out of accord with any of the fundamentals of our system of doctrine subsequent to their ordination (e.g., BCO 21-5.2.); and
• they are required to explain and defend their opinions to the court under whose authority they labor upon mere reports that their views are defective (BCO 31-30 2).

In the last instance mentioned, should the court in question, after an investigation that  requires the accused to give “satisfactory explanations,” find a strong presumption of guilt, and thus institute process, from that point forward the accused is released from the responsibility to give an account of his views and teaching because of his BCO 35-1 right to decline to testify. The exercise of this right diminishes the capacity of our courts of original jurisdiction and courts of appellate review in their Christ-appointed responsibilities. Perhaps the Presbyteries will find in these observations an occasion to study and suggest amendments to our order that will remedy this anomaly.

___________________________

1 Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

2 We note that defense counsel referred to “cross examination of the document” at trial. This is a non-sequitur which may have contributed to the error. Cross examination refers to the questioning of a witness, not a document. The fact that the prosecution had the opportunity to ask other witnesses about the document did not cure the error created when it was denied the opportunity to ask the accused about the document, and, more significantly, the views summarized and advanced in it.

3 An Exposition of the Form of Government and the Rules of Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Richmond: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1898), pp. 255-256. Emphasis added.